Immigration "Policy"

What kind of person would take a crying toddler away from its mother and lock it up in a cage? This is morally bankrupt on so many levels. Such people cannot be permitted to lead this nation. Let's do something decisive about this in November.

GOP Racism Revealed in Fox Poll

The most recent Fox News poll shows Donald Trump the current front runner among the Republican candidate field and an alarmingly high level of racism among the Republican electorate. Trump, who has gained notoriety among the general public for his characterizations of Mexican immigrants as "rapists and murderers" is the choice of 18% of Republican voters in the survey. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker comes in second with 15% and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush stands in third place with 14%. None of the other galaxy of GOP candidates registers in double figures. The poll was jointly conducted by Anderson Robbins, which usually surveys for Democrats, and Shaw & Company, which usually surveys for Republicans.

To show where the minds of voters are, 59% of all those polled felt Trump is "just a loud mouth," but among Republican primary voters, 59% said they admire the Donald. The main reason? Because "he's got guts." While 64% of all those polled support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, 68% of Republican primary voters say that Trump is "basically right" in his views about Mexican immigrants. The picture of GOP voters that emerges is that of a bloc sorely out of touch with the general public and infected with admiration for those who spew racist invective, so long as it is done emphatically.  

The first Republican debate is in three weeks and will feature the ten candidates who score highest in an average of popularity polls. Recent results practically guarantee Trump will be on the stage.

   

Obama's Order on Immigration Coming Soon

I hope President Obama goes ahead and makes his executive order on immigration, and does it soon.  The best indications are that it will be based on setting priorities for federal enforcement.  Since there are not nearly enough Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers to round up all 11-12 million undocumented residents, there is considerable discretion in how to go about enforcing the rules on the books.

It appears the president's EO will set certain conditions as a very low priority for enforcement.  These would include people who have U.S. citizen children or are living with other U.S. citizen family members, people who were brought here as very young children, those who have other close citizen relatives, and people who are working in occupations in which there is a shortage of U.S. citizen labor.  There may be additional categories as well.  Estimates are that these new directives will apply to about half the current 11-12 million people in the U.S. without papers.  President Obama has previously singled out lawbreakers as the first priority for strict enforcement and deportation.

It is inhumane to tear parents away from children or send children who have known no other home to foreign countries.  It is not helpful to our prosperity to dislocate workers who are employed and contributing to the national economy.  It is destructive to businesses to deprive them of workers they are depending on.

Obama should not worry that conservative Nativists will scream.  They always scream no matter what he does.  The Gallup Poll says that Americans favor a path to citizenship for law-abiding undocumented immigrants by a margin of 88 to 12.  The Senate already passed a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration plan back in June, 2013 by a 68-32 margin with 14 Republican votes.  The Republican-controlled House has had a year and a half  to do something.  They ought to vote right away on the Senate proposal.  Many Democrats are urging them to do that right now.  Here is a letter from Sen. Barbara Boxer about it.  But they are stuck between their business backers, who want the immigrant labor, and their prejudiced base, who hates immigrants.  Consequently they fulminate and criticize, but do nothing. 

The president should therefore act.  He is right on humanitarian grounds.  He is right on economic grounds.  And he is definitely right on political grounds.  If the Republicans do nothing he will have helped the country make its immigration policies more rational and humane.  If the Republicans instead vote against him or find a way to block him, they will devastate their chances among Latino voters and drive them to the polls en masse for the 2016 elections and beyond.  All they need do is ask California Republicans what happened here after Pete Wilson passed the anti-immigrant Proposition 187 in 1994.  They haven't been competitive in the state since. 

               

Boehner Could Get Immigration Done Tomorrow

The U.S. Senate passed a comprehensive immigration bill, SB 744, last June by a vote of 68-32.  From the liberal perspective it was pretty harsh, requiring people who are here peacefully providing for themselves and their families to wait 13 years for a path to citizenship.  It starts after  they have paid fines and application fees and waited 10 years as a "Registered Provisional Immigrant," demonstrating a work history all of that time with gaps of no more than 60 days, which is not always an easy feat for farm workers.  After that, they could apply for "permanent residence" and wait up to three more years.  The clock wouldn't start on any of this before the Border Patrol is doubled to 38,000 personnel, an additional 750 miles of fence is built, and their budget is doubled to $7 billion a year.  That's on top of a system that's already doubled its budget and personnel once since 1993.

But at the Republican price of making sure plenty of people get punished for many more years, at least there would at long last be a solution to the shadowy legal status of an estimated 11 million people in this country.  And it does include a DREAM Act provision to legalize young children brought in by their parents.  Fourteen Republican Senators joined the entire Democratic caucus to break the logjam and pass 744.  But since then, the GOP-controlled House of representatives has not taken up the legislation.  Observers agree there are plenty of votes in the House to pass immigration, counting all 199 Democrats and at least 25 of the 233 Republicans.  However, since the majority of the Republicans are opposed, Speaker John Boehner has allowed this national problem to fester rather than take a stand against the hardliners of his party.

The Speaker spoke of this recently back in his home district in Ohio.  He says he'd like to get immigration handled but says his GOP colleagues are afraid of the issue.  He then goes on to mock  their timidity.  He's really pretty funny.  See the you tube video here.  He chides them, reminding them that the reason they are elected is to make decisions.  What's ironic about the whole thing, of course, is that as Speaker of the House Boehner himself could order it brought up for a vote and get it solved tomorrow.  Instead, just like those he ridicules,  the Speaker is too afraid of criticism to take action on behalf of the peace of mind of 11 million human beings and on thousands of businesses that need a reliable labor supply.  It's shameful.     
        

New California Laws for 2014

After spending the past week visiting family and vacationing in Southern California, I'm back home and ready to alert you California residents to some information you can use. Here are some of the new laws passed in the Golden State last year that took effect on January 1.  I'm listing some I feel you might likely encounter in daily life.

Pocketbook Issues
• Minimum wages go up by $1 to $9 an hour on July 1 and by another $1 on Jan. 1 2016 to $10.
•  Computer software, or “bots,” used to buy blocks of tickets before regular consumers get access will be outlawed, making it more difficult for scalpers to hoard the best seats.
•  Domestic workers, such as in-home aides, housekeepers and nannies, will be eligible for overtime and other benefits.
• Starting July 1, workers will be able to use the current paid family leave program to care for a seriously ill grandparent, grandchild, sibling or in-law.                                                                           • Workers in outside jobs will be guaranteed recovery periods to cool down or employers can be penalized.                                                                                                                                                  • Businesses must act to protect workers who are victims of domestic violence and cannot fire them.

On the Road
• Low-emission and zero-emission vehicles without a passenger may continue to use car pool lanes until 2019.
• Drivers who park at broken meters cannot be ticketed.
• Teenagers under the age of 18 may not text while driving, even if using “hands free" devices that use voice-command messages.
• Owners may order a special $50 “Snoopy” license plate to raise money for museums. 
• Motorists must leave three feet of space when passing bicyclists.

Education
• Districts must adopt policies allowing transgender students to use the restrooms and locker facilities of their choosing, as well as play on the sports team that matches their gender identity. (There is a referendum gathering signatures in an attempt to overturn this law.)
• Veterans who served at least one year in California and file an affidavit declaring their intention to become permanent California residents will be exempt from higher out-of-state tuition when enrolling at a California State University.
• Schools may discipline students who use social media to harass others — called “cyberbullying” — even if it occurs off-campus.

Immigrant Rights
• Unauthorized immigrants will be eligible for a driver’s license by the end of the year or sooner, once DMV adopts the regulations.
• Local authorities can no longer turn unauthorized immigrants over to federal authorities for deportation if they are suspected of only minor crimes.
• Employers could be fined up to $10,000 and lose their business license if they report or threaten to report the nonlegal status of a worker who files a complaint over unsafe conditions or sexual harassment.
• Those without proof of legal status may practice law, under certain conditions.
• Non citizens may work at polling places if they are permanent legal residents.

Guns
• The Department of Justice will start keeping records of long-gun purchases.  Previously those documents were destroyed within five days.
• Conversion kits can no longer be sold if they allow a gun to shoot more than 10 rounds.
• Purchasers of long guns will have to pass a written safety like the one now required for handguns.
• People found guilty of making violent threats will have to wait five years to own a firearm.
• Gun owners who do not keep their weapons securely stored can face criminal penalties if the gun is used in a shooting involving a child. 
• Hunters cannot use lead ammunition. This goes into effect no later than July 1, 2019, but likely much earlier, as soon as Fish and Wildlife writes the regulations.

Comprehensive Immigration Stalled?

I'm beginning to think the chances are growing that comprehensive immigration reform may run into an unresolvable roadblock in the House of Representatives.  Like the fiscal "grand bargain" and sensible gun regulation, the national need, public opinion and the long-term good of the Republican Party are likely to be sacrificed to right wing ideology and the short-term political imperatives of getting re-elected in strongly conservative districts. 

Everyone knows the long-term national prospects of the Republican Party are dismal unless they can find a way to reverse their recent terrible performance with Hispanic voters.  Mitt Romney won only 27% of the nation's largest and fastest -growing minority group in the 2012 election.  What's more, national surveys indicate strong support across the country for an immigration bill that includes a path to citizenship.  In last week's passage of comprehensive immigration, 14 of the 46 GOP senators broke with their leadership and voted for the bipartisan plan that increases border security in exchange for a lengthy process that would allow the undocumented to eventually become citizens.  Together with unanimous support from Senate Democrats, the final vote produced an impressive 68-32 majority for reform.

Even so, heavy obstacles remain in the House.  None is more important than the composition of the Republican districts their members represent.  The great majority of GOP congress men and women are in safe Republican districts.  70% of congressional districts represented by a Republican are less than 10% Hispanic.  So even though they know their party needs to make inroads in the Hispanic vote to win the macro political struggle, especially in the long run, in their own cases they have much more to fear in their particular districts from primary challengers from their right who will accuse them of voting for "amnesty" for "illegal aliens," two terms that are political dynamite among arch conservatives. 

The only way to pass comprehensive immigration in the House is a bill that would win over the Democrats and 15 or 20 of the most moderate Republicans.   But Speaker John Boehner, whose own position is precarious and has shown little ability to stand up to the tea party extremists in his own caucus, has said he will introduce no bill in the House that doesn't have majority Republican support.  That rules out any bill that doesn't support harshly punitive steps against undocumented workers, the type of bill that cannot pass the Senate.  In the final analysis, in order to get anything done, House Republicans would have to vote for the national interest and their party's long term interest over their own individual short-term political interests. 

That takes political courage.  It is is the kind of thing many House Democrats did in passing health reform in 2010, and many paid for it that November with the loss of their seats.  Up to now, it is the kind of perspective we have seen precious little of from the members of this Republican House.  Though it would be a welcome development, it may be too much to hope for.   

 

Immigration Reform and the Latino Vote

All of a sudden it looks as though we may get a comprehensive immigration bill through Congress this session.  A group of eight senators, four from each party, came forward on Monday this week to announce their agreement on a general framework.  They timed their announcement to try to upstage President Obama, who delivered his ideas for his own plan as scheduled in Las Vegas on Tuesday.  The big questions are whether it can pass the House and whether Hispanic voters have long or short memories.  

The rapid movement on an issue that has been dead in the water for years is a result of last November's election, in which according to exit polls, President Obama won 71% of the Hispanic vote to Mitt Romney's 27%.  Senator John McCain (R-AZ) clearly stated that the Republican Party badly needs to repair its standing with Latinos or it will become the minority party in states like his with "changing demographics."  The voters have spoken, and on the national and state levels, if Republicans continue to be the party that wants to deport grandma, they can write off the nation's largest minority group, which will also soon be its largest minority voting bloc.  As Bob Menendez (D-NJ), another in the bipartisan group of eight  stated, reform may well happen because "business demands it, Democrats want it and Republicans need it."        

The senators' outline includes strong border enforcement, employer enforcement, allowing a system for more legal immigration to include temporary agricultural workers along with the highly-skilled,  and a pathway to citizenship for those who entered the nation illegally after they pay fines, back taxes, and go to the end of the line behind those who are attempting to enter legally.  They hope to have a bill drafted by March and passed before the August recess.  The president echoed several of the same criteria, though he also called for the registration and immediate temporary status of those already here, a somewhat more rapid path to citizenship and called for permitting same-sex partners equal prerogatives for admission as enjoyed by heterosexual spouses.  In either approach, in order to determine who is eligible to stay and work in the U.S. it is likely some form of national ID would be needed.

The potential roadblock is in the House of Representatives.  There Republicans are in the majority and most are elected in safe, gerrymandered districts where they have more to worry about from tea party adherents primarying them from the right than from Democrats beating them in the general election by charging them with being too restrictive on immigration.  That is why Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY) and McCain said they hoped they could get 80 (of the 100) votes in the Senate to show overwhelming bipartisan support and generate pressure for the House to concur.

The other question is about Latinos themselves.  Their votes have scared thinking Republicans into realizing they might want to stop alienating the fastest growing population in the country.  President Obama applied the heat by saying if Congress stalls he will introduce his plan in full and demand a quick vote.  If the GOP refuses to vote or votes no, the next Latino election split might be 90-10.  But what if a sensible and reasonably humane immigration program does manage enough Republican votes in the House to succeed?  Will Hispanics and other immigrant groups so quickly forget the years of indifference and in many cases outright hostility heaped on them by the Republicans?  That they finally came around dragging their feet because they had been beaten into reluctant reasonableness?  And will they forget that it was the Democrats who had been the ones sticking up for them all along?  Based on what I've seen here in California on the Hispanic vote after the anti-immigrant GOP-sponsored Proposition 187 in 1994, I wouldn't bet on it.            

Texas Turning Democratic?

Changing population demographics and an increasingly anti-immigrant political stance may soon cost Republicans the state of Texas in national elections. Such is the convincing analysis by Harold Meyerson in the Washington Post this week. Any Republican hope of winning a presidential election starts with Texas. As the biggest solid Republican state, its electoral votes (likely to rise by four to 38 after the 2010 census) are crucial to the GOP to offset the massive bloc of 55 electoral votes California customarily puts into the Democratic column every election night. This tectonic shift may not come in 2012, but it is coming a few years down the road unless major voting patterns drastically change.

Hispanics tend to vote Democratic. Nationally, in 2004 they supported Kerry over Bush by 20 points, 60 to 40. In 2008 they went even more lopsidedly for Obama over McCain, 67 to 31. Results in the state of Texas mirrored the national results, especially without former Texas Governor George W. Bush on the ballot in 2008. Kerry had just edged Bush 50-49 among Hispanics in 2004, but Obama walloped McCain with Hispanics in the Lone Star State in 2010, 63-35.

This is significant because census figures show the ethnic balance in Texas tilting away from a white majority. In fact, "during the past decade, Texas joined California as a majority-minority state: The percentage of whites in the Texas population declined from 53 percent in 2000 to 45 percent in 2010, while the percentage of Latinos rose from 32 percent to 38 percent." And of all Texans under age 18, 48 percent are now Latinos. Add in the 12 percent of Texans who are black, and these two strong Democratic-leaning groups now account for 50 percent of the Texas population between them. The only thing currently saving Republican prospects in Texas are turnout figures. In 2008 whites were less than 50 percent of the population but constituted 63 percent of the voters. Blacks came out at their percentage of the population (13), but Hispanics, 36 percent of the people, provided only 20 percent of the votes. Once the Democrats can register more of them and get them to the polls, the Republicans are sunk there.

Even more ominous for the GOP, Meyerson points out that nationally, "whites are now a minority-49.9%-of Americans 3 and under. Looking at all school enrollment, pre-K through graduate school, whites were 58.8% of all students in 2009, down from 64.6% in 2000." And yet, "As America becomes increasingly multiracial, the Republicans have chosen to become increasingly white." 90 percent of McCain's voters were white, compared to 61 percent of Obama's.

Rather than reaching out to Hispanics, Republicans have intensified a campaign against their concerns. By passing the Arizona identification law, opposing the Dream Act and introducing constitutional amendments to deny birthright citizenship to children of the undocumented, they have chosen a stance of hostility. Hispanics have responded in kind at the polls. As Meyerson points out, in Nevada, Colorado and California last year, "Republicans ran statewide candidates who embraced Arizona's draconian racial identification law. And massive turnout from Latinos, who overwhelmingly voted Democratic, defeated those candidates."

In view of the inexorable population trend and the Republican base's ever more rightist and anti-immigrant requirements, it is hard to see how the GOP can hold onto Texas from 2016 onward. And once it slips from their grasp they will face an existential electoral dilemma. For with California and Texas both firmly in the Democratic camp, those two states alone will provide them with more than one-third of the electoral votes needed to win the presidency. Together with the 16 other safely Blue states and the District of Columbia that have voted Democratic at least five elections in a row, Democratic presidential candidates would have 264 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win before a campaign even started. Republican hopefuls would have to sweep every swing state every time to barely squeak out a victory.

States Propose Immigration Programs

Pressed by a growing shortage of agricultural labor, the states of Arizona and Colorado have begun working on plans to set up their own guest worker programs. The new movement highlights the foolishness of the "enforcement-only" approach to the immigration controversy, showing that the more successful the effort is to prevent illegal immigration the more it damages our own economy. It is clear that only a comprehensive approach that takes into account both economic requirements and humane considerations can be a sensible response to the immigration issue.

Arizona is a particularly ironic case. The state first cracked down on illegal immigration, mandating serious penalties for hiring the undocumented and directing police to check the citizenship status of anyone stopped for any reason in order to deport as many as possible. In addition to increased federal border patrols, vigilante groups have set up shop and are active along the border too. The result? According to the Associated Press, "Last year ripe romaine lettuce sometimes went bad in the fields around Yuma, Arizona because (labor contractor Francisco) Chavez didn't have enough people to harvest the crop." Republican State Representative Bill Konopnicki owns a restaurant and says "the labor shortage has been mounting for several years."

Konopnicki is co-author of the Arizona legislation that would set up a state-supervised program allowing employers to, "recruit workers through Mexican consulates if they can document a labor shortage and unsuccessful efforts to find local employees." The bill was approved unanimously in a bipartisan Arizona House committee vote in February and now goes to the full body.

In Colorado, State Senator Able Tapia's bill would allow "the state to hire labor firms in Mexico to find workers" for labor-starved Colorado farms. The plan is an effort to get around cumbersome federal procedures that render it nearly impossible to get foreign workers by the time they are needed. The Colorado bill requires employers, "As an incentive for workers to return to their homelands...to withhold 20 percent of workers' wages and send the money after the workers return home."

The state efforts will likely come to naught. Former Border Patrol head and current Congressman Silverstre Reyes (D-Texas) says, "It's ironic that Arizona and Colorado are so eager for cheap foreign labor because in recent years both states have cracked down on undocumented immigration." He also feels, "It's unlikely the states would get the necessary (federal) permission to arrange their own foreign labor." That's because immigration is a federal responsibility under the constitution, a power the U.S. government and Congress would be unlikely to concede to the states. Law professor Kris Kobach of the University of Missouri at Kansas City said, "The proposals would never hold up in court."

True as that may be, it only underscores the failure of Congress to pass immigration reform in 2006 and 2007, when it folded in the face of extremist anti-immigrant criticism. Now some of the very states formerly at the forefront of the opposition have begun to recognize the shortsightedness of their earlier policies. It will be interesting to see whether common sense can prevail in time for the 2008 harvest, or whether election-year posturing will delay action until a new administration is inaugurated and a new Congress seated next January. I wouldn't bet on common sense, so be prepared for soaring produce prices the rest of this year.

Solving Immigration

There are an approximately 12 million immigrants in the United States who have not been admitted through the normal immigration and naturalization procedures. An estimated 400,000 to 700,000 more arrive every year, compared with about 800,000 who enter legally. Most Americans see this as a problem. Many are even hysterical about it. It should be pointed out that these 12 million represent 4% of the U.S. population. By way of comparison, the 1920 census found that 58% of the residents of all American cities of 100,000 or more were foreign-born. So today's figures are in fact very mild by historical standards. Even so, it is an issue of concern and should be dealt with.

The debate over what to do about it has been dominated by extremists on the one hand who would like to see the lot of them rounded up and deported and extremists on the other hand who feel all who wish to come to America should be welcomed with open arms. Currently the deportation group has by far the upper hand politically, but the welcome group has the upper hand de facto.

Both positions are complete nonsense, of course. A reasonable approach based on the national interest and humanitarian morality must take a set of reality-based facts and principles into account. Here are a few of them.

The United States has the right to control its borders and determine who gets in and who does not. The American economy requires the services of these immigrants. It is in the national interest that immigrant labor does not displace citizen labor, that all residents have access to health care and education, that they are identifiable persons, and that they not become a permanent underclass in American society. All these objectives can be met by establishing a set of practical and reasonable processes.

The first goal requires firm security at the borders. This is indeed essential, and it is as far as many of the anti-immigrant extremists go. While this is necessary it must be recognized that no such system will ever be effective by itself. The borders and seacoasts are too long, and they are not the only ways people enter the country. Many enter legally at ports of entry by land, air and sea as tourists, students or on business and simply overstay their visas and never leave. The 9-11 hijackers were all here legally, for instance.

If we are serious about getting a handle on the issue there must be tamper-proof identification cards. These must include those for citizens, legal resident non-citizens and temporary visitors. It must be made impossible for people to function for long in the United States without them. There must be deterrent penalties for those who hire, sell property, extend credit, provide rental cars, book transportation, rent hotel rooms and so on to those who cannot establish a legal right to be in the U.S. Some will cry "police state" at this practice, but the issue cannot be dealt with otherwise. Almost all residents have a government-issued ID already, whether it be a driver's license or a social security card and number.

The labor department should compile periodic assessments of how many and what types of workers are needed and must communicate the specifics to immigration authorities. Immigration should then issue that many and type of temporary worker cards with tamper-proof IDs that are valid for a stated time period to that many workers. Here in California's San Joaquin Valley the harvest cannot be brought in without guest workers. It is a fool's game to do as we do now by trying to stop them at the border while leaving agriculture no choice but to hire them if they can make it in. The current system is grossly inefficient, not to mention degrading and sometimes life-threatening to the immigrants. Transportation ought to be furnished to the guest workers to and from their places of employment.

Those non-citizens who are currently in the United States, are self-supporting or dependents of those who are, and have no serious criminal record must be allowed to stay. This, I know, infuriates the anti-immigrant set, but there is no practical alternative. It is simply not possible to locate and deport 12 million people. It's not happening. The antis must come to grips with reality, and politicians have to stand up to them. 75% of the American people agree that a mass deportation of all illegals is impractical. Only 16% think otherwise. Government leaders must find the courage to stand with rationality and not with the 16% who scream the loudest. Why can't it be done?

For one thing, it is beyond our logistical capacity. For another, to attempt to do so would cripple the American economy which depends on their labor. The oft-repeated myth that they are all here to get welfare is malarkey. Hispanic males have the highest workforce participation of any subgroup in American society. Finally, it would precipitate a human rights calamity. 12 million people would go underground like hunted animals or like the Jews of World War II Europe. Families would be torn apart or children who are American citizens would be sent to foreign lands they have never lived in. Many of the deported would not be able to find a job in impoverished third-world countries and would likely starve. It's not happening and will never happen. Anti-immigrant extremists are going to have to get over it.

So if they are staying, and they are, they must become eligible for services such as health care, education, driver's licenses, and so on. Public health, preventing the establishment of a caste of helots in an egalitarian society and law enforcement imperatives necessitate it. To do otherwise would also be an egregious moral injustice. Those who are here, self-supporting and law-abiding and want to stay must be issued ID cards with a path to permanent residency and citizenship if they learn English and remain productive members of society. Period.
It's high time to end the ugly and emotion-fueled immigration conundrum. With firm border enforcement, a tamper-proof ID, serious penalties for hiring the undocumented and a rational procedure for anticipating and admitting the proper number of immigrants legally, the issue can be resolved.